Plus, my 4-step plan for combatting breast cancer NATURALLY
Last year, breast cancer topped the list of the most commonly diagnosed cancers globally—surpassing lung cancer for the first time, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).1
That’s quite a development, considering lung cancer attacks both men and women, while nearly the entire brunt of breast cancer falls upon women (although male breast cancer is a rare but growing problem).
But even though breast cancer accounted for almost 12 percent of an estimated 19 million new cancer cases in 2020, IARC data showed that it ranked only fifth in total cancer deaths worldwide. More people died from lung, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancer than from breast cancer.
Which seems like a silver lining. But here’s a hidden statistic: Breast cancer still ranks first in mortality in 110 countries. In fact, IARC maps show that while breast cancer incidences are highest in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia, mortality rates are highest in Africa and Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, Chile has elevated levels of both diagnoses and deaths.So, what’s really going on?
Well, it all has to do with how breast cancer is diagnosed and treated (or not diagnosed and treated) throughout the world. And it exposes how little progress has been made on both of those fronts in the U.S., despite our 50-year, trillion-dollar “war on cancer.”
But the good news is, you don’t have to rely on antiquated, ineffective, and even dangerous breast cancer screening and treatment methods. There are simple, natural, effective steps you can take to substantially reduce your risk of all cancers—including breast cancer.
I’ll share some of those steps in just a moment. But first, let’s take a closer look at the current state of mainstream breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
That includes shocking new research showing that common breast cancer treatments (like chemotherapy) and some surgeries (like mastectomies) are useless for quite a few women diagnosed with breast cancer…and how radiation can be much more toxic than doctors report.
Uncovering the disparity between breast cancer diagnoses and deaths
Pink ribbons celebrate all of the lives that were saved from breast cancer—but the truth is, most of those lives were never really at risk. And the IARC data exposes this as one of the biggest problems with the U.S. “cancer industry.”
In other words, since we’ve devoted so much time and attention to cancer diagnosis, we’ve reached the point where any sort of breast cell abnormality is frequently classified as cancer—even if it doesn’t spread or kill. (But we should more accurately think of these incidences—including ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]—as “fake cancers,” because they’re rarely fatal.)
Meanwhile, true, aggressive, and potentially deadly breast cancers are woefully neglected.
But many other countries can’t afford (or don’t have the health resources) to diagnose and treat these “fake cancers.” As a result, breast cancers detected in those countries are real—which helps account for the higher death rates in those 110 countries reported by the IARC.
Plus, the increase in breast cancer diagnoses worldwide is likely attributable to “marked changes in lifestyle, sociocultural contexts, and built environments,” according to the IARC.2 That obscure language translates to women bearing fewer children, along with delayed childbearing. I would also add earlier ages of puberty, later ages for menopause, and lack of breastfeeding.
The IARC also contributes being overweight or obese, with lack of consistent physical activity, to the growing numbers of breast cancer diagnoses worldwide. But I’ve observed this is difficult to demonstrate among the middle-aged and older women who are the typical victims of breast cancer (although diet is a factor in breast cancer risk, which I’ll discuss in a moment).
How the U.S. lags behind in predicting breast cancer deaths
Fortunately, breast cancer generally has good long-term survival rates, especially for women who get the disease in middle age or older. Many women survive breast cancer for the first five years (a typical milestone for success against cancers in general). And quite a few live 20 years or longer after their initial diagnosis.
But for some women, breast cancer can recur. In fact, the key statistic regarding whether breast cancer becomes fatal is based on recurrence. Knowing the rate, extent, and timing of breast cancer recurrence is key to planning medical care and predicting long-term health status.
That’s why studies on breast cancer should follow women for a long time, collecting accurate information about recurrence and survival. But, sadly, I’ve seen personally how cancer research has been in the dark for decades regarding the critical question of breast cancer recurrences.
When I went to work as a young researcher at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the mid-1980s, the government had recently completed a huge, expensive study on screening for breast cancer called the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (BCDDP). The study included tens of thousands of women at 29 different medical centers around the country.
As young researchers, we recognized it was a perfect group of women to continue to follow. Not only could we learn more about survival from and recurrence of breast cancer, but we could also look at additional risk factors and other health issues for women (such as heart disease and hip fractures) that were of growing concern.
We went around the country to the different medical centers, meeting with leading doctors about ongoing study of these women who were currently being seen at their centers. The doctors and researchers were enthusiastic about our plans.
But then, suddenly, the big political boss at our division of NCI pulled the rug out from under us. (I heard he instead wanted to chase ridiculous theories about what causes breast cancer or what could prevent it.) And the “Further Follow-up” I had set up for the BCDDP group was abruptly cancelled. (Which was really disheartening and embarrassing for a young researcher after making commitments with leading cancer researchers around the country.)
And even though a BCDDP follow-up did continue in some form, the NCI still doesn’t have the data on breast cancer recurrence that doctors needed then—and still need today. But now, more than 40 years after the BCDDP began, there’s finally hope that this crucial data will at long-last be collected…
SEER-ing into the future
It’s been a long time coming, but the NCI finally wants to track long-term breast cancer recurrence and survival—using another big, costly database called SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results).3
SEER, which began back in 1973, is the gold mine of all U.S. cancer data. At first, the focus was on getting accurate statistics on the incidences of different types of cancers. Then, SEER expanded to include subgroups of cancers at various stages of diagnosis.
But SEER has never included information on the recurrence of cancers. Even though that’s the information that patients who survive cancer, and their doctors, really need to manage their lives and medical care.
Now, the NCI has reportedly added a long-term SEER goal of collecting data that will allow calculation of breast cancer recurrences—although it’s expected to take a couple years.
But, of course, there won’t be any real research investment into all of the natural approaches that help fight against and keep cancer at bay, including breast cancer. Which is really tragic in light of the new research I mentioned earlier about the perils of chemotherapy, radiation, and some common breast cancer surgeries.
Let’s begin with the chemotherapy research…
Researchers find chemo useless for many breast cancer patients
A new study out of Indiana University looked at recurrence in women whose breast cancer had spread to the lymph nodes (“real” breast cancer). It was a follow-up to a previous study that included women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer that hadn’t spread to their lymph nodes.4
Both studies showed that in postmenopausal women, there was no benefit to chemotherapy treatments alone, without accompanying hormone treatments.
“The results could not be more convincing,” said Dr. Kathy Miller, one of the study authors. “In the postmenopausal patients, which was roughly 75 percent of the patients enrolled in this trial, there was absolutely no benefit to chemotherapy—not a trend, not a hint, not a suggestion.”
I don’t have to tell you what an amazing conclusion this is. When the researchers put it this way, it means there’s no way statisticians can manipulate the data to make something imaginary appear.
In both studies, there was a slight benefit for chemotherapy in premenopausal women. But it’s important to note that breast cancer in premenopausal women is a much rarer form, with differences in risk factors. According to Dr. Miller, the data suggests that the “lion’s share, if not the entire benefit” of chemo in these younger women came from its impacts on the ovaries.
Although, in the younger women whose ovaries were still producing estrogen, chemo poisoned the ovarian tissue so it couldn’t carry out its normal function of making estrogen—meaning that the “chemo effect” was really the result of hormone therapy as well.
Dr. Miller didn’t go so far as to discount chemotherapy treatment for all women with breast cancer. But she did say that chemo is “no longer a mandate or a firm recommendation” in women who are also getting hormone therapy.
Overall, she concluded: “This is a great day for our patients in terms of the more rational use of chemotherapy—that is, getting chemotherapy to those who need it and will benefit from it, and sparing the toxicity from those who won’t benefit.”
Doctors underestimate toxicity of radiation treatments
If this new chemotherapy research weren’t enough to make doctors and patients completely rethink conventional cancer treatments, a new study shows that radiation therapy for breast cancer has much worse side effects than doctors acknowledge.5
Researchers analyzed reports of side effects from nearly 10,000 women who underwent breast irradiation following a lumpectomy. They then compared the women’s reports with their doctors’ reports of side effects.
The researchers assessed that physicians failed to recognize four key symptoms of radiation toxicity—pain, swelling, heat and redness, and fatigue.
(It appears these doctors need to go back to Medicine 101, where all students are taught that these symptoms are the cardinal signs for recognizing injury—known 2,000 years ago to the ancient Romans as tumor, calor, rubor, and dolor. It doesn’t get any more basic than that for examining the patient—unless you’re too busy fiddling with fancy, high-tech radiation beams and tubes.)
In fact, data showed that the doctors failed to recognize at least one of these symptoms in a whopping 53 percent of patients who reported radiation side effects.
More specifically, doctors ignored or underreported symptoms in 31 percent of women who had moderate to severe pain, 37 percent who had frequent itching, 51 percent who had frequent swelling, and 19 percent who had severe fatigue.
This is a key finding because, typically, it’s the doctors’ underestimated figures that make it into the scientific literature and are reported to government “watchdogs.” (I had reported years ago that doctors tended to ignore the side effects of cancer screenings and treatments, but it didn’t look this bad at the time).
This ultimately means that the so-called “scientific conclusions” that radiation only has minimal side effects should now be in question. And perhaps in the future, mainstream medicine will listen more closely to the women actually experiencing the side effects, rather than the physicians who ignore them.
Just because toxic side effects of any treatment are “routine” and “expected” doesn’t mean that patients don’t experience them—and that they shouldn’t speak up about them.
Breast cancer surgeries you should avoid
Of course, radiation and chemotherapy are relatively new treatments for breast cancer. But new research shows that even the old standby of surgery may no longer be needed for some women.
Surgery has been the signature medical treatment for breast cancer since the 19th century. The basic idea is to take out the cancerous tumor and any tissue that might also harbor cancer cells.
There are many different kinds of surgical procedures for breast cancer, but the new study reports that two of the most common actually have no meaningful clinical benefit.
Researchers evaluated data on surgeries involving nearly 1 million U.S. women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.6
They found that rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (taking off the healthy breast along with the breast with cancer) more than doubled during the study period—despite being determined by surgeon groups to be a “low value” procedure for women at average risk of breast cancer.
In addition, rates of lymph node biopsies among women ages 70 years and older with hormone-responsive tumors increased from 78 percent in 2004 to a whopping 87 percent in 2012…despite findings from a 2013 study showing no survival benefit to this procedure.
So why are doctors continuing to perform these useless, painful, disfiguring, and expensive surgeries?
As for biopsies, researchers speculate that surgeons are either unfamiliar with the evidence that they’re ineffective, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation.
For contralateral prophylactic mastectomies, the researchers believe the decisions are actually being made by the patients themselves. Women undergoing mastectomies of a cancerous breast may be afraid they’ll get cancer in the other breast—even without any evidence showing that will happen.
The researchers said one way to avoid this is to prioritize lumpectomies (where affected breast tissue is removed) over mastectomies in women with smaller cancers.
In my view, I think this all goes back to what I discussed earlier about the American mania with overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Surgeons are determined to “cut out cancer” any way they can. But women can combat that thinking by making sure they’re properly educated and counseled about all of the risks and benefits of a procedure.
So, my advice is this: Never be afraid to ask your doctors why they recommend any kind of breast cancer treatment—and insist they share any evidence behind their decisions.
Four steps to safely and effectively lower your risk of breast cancer
It’s clear that the U.S. medical establishment has been way off on its approach to breast cancer diagnosis and treatment—from refusing to track key statistics like recurrences, to insisting on useless and toxic surgeries, chemo, and radiation.
But there are some simple ways you can reduce your risk of breast cancer—and eliminate the need for questionable screening and treatment methods in the first place.
Here’s my four-step, evidence-based approach…
1.) Load up on fruits and vegetables. A study of 1,042 women found that carotenoids in foods—alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, and zeaxanthin—may help prevent breast cancer.7 (I helped discover the roles of these carotenoids in human nutrition and metabolism, and their nutrient composition in foods, back in the mid-1980s.) Not only are carotenoids powerful antioxidants that can protect against DNA damage, but the researchers noted that they may even help keep normal cells from mutating into cancerous cells.
Alpha-carotene is found in orange foods like pumpkin and carrots. Beta-carotene is also found in carrots, along with leafy greens and peppers. Lycopene is what makes foods like tomatoes, watermelon, and grapefruit red. And you can find high doses of lutein and zeaxanthin in leafy greens.
2.) Take your daily vitamins. All of these carotenoid-rich fruits and vegetables are also high in B and C vitamins. But I also recommend taking a high-quality B complex vitamin every day (with at least 55 mg of B6), along with 250 mg of C twice a day.
A variety of studies have shown that vitamin E can also help prevent breast cancer. I recommend 50 mg per day, together with a healthy, balanced diet.
And it’s no surprise that the wonder vitamin, D, has been shown in numerous studies to be protective against breast cancer. Plus, if you’re diagnosed with breast cancer, a long-term study involving 4,443 women found that taking higher levels of vitamin D improves quality of life and doubles your chances of survival.8 As always, I recommend 250 mcg (10,000 IU) of D3 every day.
3.) Eat calcium-rich foods. Research shows that calcium and vitamin D together are protective against breast cancer. As I often report, it’s essential you get calcium from your diet, as calcium supplements are ineffective and dangerous. So be sure to eat plenty of wild-caught seafood, grass-fed and -finished meat, and organic, full-fat dairy.
4.) Supplement with selenium. Research shows this mineral can help suppress a protein involved in tumor development, growth, and metastasis. In fact, an analysis of nine studies involving more than 150,000 people found that selenium supplementation cut the risk of all types of cancer by 24 percent.9
Of course, there are dozens of natural approaches—without toxic side effects—to help fight against all types of cancers, including breast cancer. I’ve outlined them all in great detail in a groundbreaking online learning tool, my Authentic Anti-Cancer Protocol.
This all-inclusive protocol is the sum total of more than 40 years of personal research, study, and experience in natural cancer treatment. And every solution you’ll hear about has been studied and researched by countless, cutting-edge medical institutions. To learn more about it, or to enroll today, click here or call 1-866-747-9421 and ask for order code EOV3X500.
4 Kathy D. Miller. RxPONDER: Chemo ‘No Longer a Mandate’ for Some With Breast Cancer - Medscape - Jan 04, 2021.
6“Variations in Persistent Use of Low-Value Breast Cancer Surgery.” JAMA Surg. 2021 Feb 3:e206942.
7“Specific serum carotenoids are inversely associated with breast cancer risk among Chinese women: a case–control study.” Br J Nutr. 2015 Oct 20:1-9.
8“Meta-analysis of vitamin D sufficiency for improving survival of patients with breast cancer.” Anticancer Res. 2014 Mar;34(3):1163-6.
9“Effects of selenium supplements on cancer prevention: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Nutr Cancer.2011 Nov;63(8):1185-95.